On 14 Mar 2013, at 23:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
This is a nice lecture by Johan van Benthem that covers the kind of
approach that I am trying to use in my critique of comp:
http://videolectures.net/esslli2011_benthem_logic/ It gives a nice
alternative to the concept of a universal Platonic Mind or secular God
to whom all true statements are known to be true.
It might help you understand my thinking. ;-)
But it does not. Comp needs only arithmetical realism, and oppose
itself to stronger form of platonism or realism, even for the
physical. So I fail to see your point.
Please make you point explicitly.
But from your last post, I think that your theory is no-comp. But I am
not interested in defending the truth of any theory. Just the validity
of a reasoning, which shows that comp leads to a body problem. And
that's what makes comp interesting, imo, as comp explains that the
physical laws have a non physical origin. As a scientist, I don't care
about the truth of a theory. I care only on its refutability.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.